Whose studies do you trust to produce scientifically rigorous data?

Some of us (me, for instance) know just enough about science to understand that (following is my assertion) the results set out by principle researchers of studies are often 1) wrong, 2) ill-conditioned, and 3) (at best) misleading. I agree with a statement made in a health news article, "There’s lots of evidence that demonstrates that industry involvement can skew the direction of research, it can skew the research questions that are asked, and researchers follow the money...."

If you are interest, the particular study in the health news article concerns chocolate and its "health benefits".

Chocolate health myth dissolves

Health-enhancing flavanols that end up on the shelf will likely appear in form other than chocolate

By Kelly Crowe, CBC News Posted: Jan 05, 2015 10:00 AM ET Last Updated: Jan 05, 2015 10:01 PM ET

When the New York Times ran this headline last fall, "To improve a memory, consider chocolate," it quickly became one of the newspaper’s "most emailed" stories. Other news outlets rushed to match the story.

My assignment desk perked up and sent me the clipping with the question "interesting?" And it was interesting, but not for the reasons most news editors hope.

It was interesting because the study was not about chocolate at all. That’s because chocolate contains almost none of the compound that the researchers are studying.

It’s an irony that lies at the heart of a major international scientific effort to find something healthy in the cocoa bean, an effort largely sponsored by the chocolate industry.

I recommend that you go to the article (following the headline link) if you really care about the subject. My only interest is that the chocolate debate is so akin to many debates that are bandied about by our Western world (at least) populace and politicians.

On the broader subject of testing:

While searching for photos for the latest addition to the previous posting, I ran across a test that was ostensibly given to Russian soldiers. (A hat tip to Stu for the spelling lesson!)

Posted on April 30, 2009 by

Can’t see circle 1: High agression, proneness to conflict, the recommendation is to add more physical excercise and cold showers.

Can’t see circle 2: Possible low than average intellectual abilities, can’t serve with sophisticated equipment.

Can’t see circle 3: Possible debauchery, soldier should get increased daily ration, should get more physical activity tasks, should not be connected to food supplies, etc.

Can’t see circle 4: Possible inclination to violence, can be assigend as a leader to his unit, as he can preserve discipline.

Can’t see circle 5: Possible latent homosexuality. Can be light uncontrolled accesses of attraction to the same sex.

Can’t see circle 6: Possible schizophreanic tendency. Required additional inspection.

Every soldier should be tested before assignment, according to the order #2299.”

Well, who are you going to believe - the posting or me? I can't be the only one who remembers the above test as being one applied in the USA, at least, to test for color-blindness. I think someone just wished to have a bit of fun with his/her readers!

The first time I took that test, during a 1st Class Medical Exam to get a medical certificate for flying, I about freaked out the flight surgeon who administered the test - by missing one of the six circles. Most color-blindness is linked to the Y-chromosome (of which I have none of my own!) The flight surgeon in Seattle, 1966, was the first to administer the test on me. My flight surgeon in Wichita, 1964, had not bothered. It was probably #2 that I missed then. At least, just now, I had difficulty deciphering it! (Prior to having cataract surgery 4.5 years ago, I probably wouldn't have been able to decipher any of them.)

Comments

[Joared]

Good grief ..... and you've been up there flyin' 'round???

You're so right about the need to question research studies, then once they're published the people who interpret them as well. What's the sample like? How did they account for variables? Did they really test what they said they were testing? Etc., etc....

[Ole Phat Stu]

Ostensibly, not austensibly :-)

[Cop Car]

Joared--I only flew (as pilot in command) for another 20 years after "failing" the color-blindness test. The only time I had a real problem was in trying to read a sectional chart under the red cabin lighting during nighttime operation. ; )

Stu--Picky, picky, picky. (Thanks for pointing out my error. You can tell that I mispronounce it, too - like austenitic.) The comments have auto-correct spelling; but, the postings do not. Go figure!

[Hattie]

I never heard of a color blind woman! A red-green color blind friend of ours married a redhead: a waste, that was.

[Cop Car]

Hattie--Color blindness is a rare condition in a woman - that's for sure! HH dislikes red hair. Fortunately for me, looks were never among his top 5 criteria in choosing a mate! Even if it were, he tells me that I am no longer a redhead! *laughing*

The following is from Inherited Colour Vision Deficiency.

"If a woman has only one colour blind ‘gene’ she is known as a ‘carrier’ but she won’t be colour blind. When she has a child she will give one of her X chromosomes to the child. If she gives the X chromosome with the faulty ‘gene’ to her son he will be colour blind, but if he receives the ‘good’ chromosome he won’t be colour blind.

"A colour blind boy can’t receive a colour blind ‘gene’ from his father, even if his father is colour blind, because his father can only pass an X chromosome to his daughters.

"A colour blind daughter therefore must have a father who is colour blind and a mother who is a carrier (who has also passed the faulty ‘gene’ to her daughter). If her father is not colour blind, a ‘carrier’ daughter won’t be colour blind. A daughter can become a carrier in one of two ways – she can acquire the ‘gene’ from a carrier mother or from a colour blind father.

"This is why red/green colour blindness is far more common in men than women."

P.S. Earlier in the article we are told, "Red/green colour blindness is passed from mother to son on the 23rd chromosome, which is known as the sex chromosome because it also determines sex."

[Ole Phat Stu]

Thanks for inspiring me to a test.
I snapshotted my blog today then converted the snapshot to a gray scale to see
if it was still usable. Yes, my fear that used/unused links would be indistinguishable was unfounded :-)
I do need to be careful about using BOLD fonts though :-(

BTW, Russian testblobs #1 and #4 are still legible even on a gray scale, so WTF?

[bogie]

An eye doctor gave me a color blindness test about 15 years ago. Several I had real difficulties with, and one I had no clue. He dismissed it as my being difficult as "women cant be color blind". Then why did he bother with the test?

:Looking at the picture (which I had to follow the link by the way because it didn't show up in this post), #5 - I have no idea. I can't for the life of me figure out that anything is supposed to be represented. #3 & 6 I have to stare at for about several seconds to get a sense that there is a number there, and then a bit more to know what it is. #2 is tough, but do-able fairly quickly. 1 & 4 are easy.

Then, if I use only my left eye; #1 & 4 are the only ones I can see. My right eye can see 1 and 4 and sort of 2. Amazing that I can see some with both eyes (even if difficult) that I can't see with a single eye.

Can someone tell me what is supposed to be in #5?

[Ole Phat Stu]

84

[Cop Car]

Bogie--Hopefully, you found a better eye doctor! Fewer than 10 in 1000 women are color blind (10 in 1000 settles the ambiguity of the grammar issue presented by 1 in 100); but, that is far from saying that a woman cannot be.

Bogie & Stu--This is what I see in the above circles: 25, 29, 45, 56, no number, and 8. As I've cautioned in other postings: My writing/thinking/saying something does not make it true. Please see later posting, "Just for fun".